Comparing two different orthogeriatric models of care for hip fracture patients: an observational prospective cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with hip fractures are almost always operated with quite extensive surgery and are often frail with a high risk of complications, increased dependency, and death. Orthogeriatric interdisciplinary care has shown better results compared with orthopaedic care alone. The best way of delivering orthogeriatric care, however, is still largely unknown. It is believed that a high degree of integration and shared care is better than on-demand consultative services. We aimed to evaluate two different orthogeriatric models for patients with hip fracture. METHODS: A prospective hip fracture quality database was used to evaluate two coexisting models of care from 2019 to 2021 in our hospital. An 'integrated care model' (ICM) was compared with a 'geriatric consult service' (GCS). RESULTS: 516 patients were available for analysis, 360 from ICM and 156 from GCS. Mean age was 84 years. There were 370 (72%) women. American Society of Anesthesiologists class and prefracture cognitive impairment was similar between the groups. There were more patients with femoral neck fractures in the ICM group, and more patients were living independently prefracture. A logistic regression adjusting for the variables above showed that more patients in the ICM group were given a nerve block preoperatively (OR 2.0 (95% CI 1.31 to 2.97); p<0.01), had their urinary catheter removed the first day after surgery (OR 1.9 (95% CI 1.27 to 2.89); p<0.01), were mobilised to standing or seated in a chair beside the bed the first day after surgery (OR 1.5 (95% CI 1.03 to 2.30); p=0.033) and more ICM patients were considered for treatment against osteoporosis (OR 8.58 (95% CI 4.03 to 18.28); p<0.001). There were no significant differences in time to surgery, length of stay, discharge destination or mortality. CONCLUSION: The ICM group performed equally good or better on all quality indicators than the GCS.

Scope of treatment and clinical-decision making in the older patient with COVID-19 infection, a European perspective.

PURPOSE: Older patients were particularly vulnerable to severe COVID-19 disease resulting in high in-hospital mortality rates during the two first waves. The aims of this study were to better characterize the management of older people presenting with COVID-19 in European hospitals and to identify national guidelines on hospital admission and ICU admission for this population. METHODS: Online survey based on a vignette of a frail older patient with Covid-19 distributed by e-mail to all members of the European Geriatric Medicine Society. The survey contained questions regarding the treatment of the vignette patient as well as general questions regarding available services. Additionally, questions on national policies and differences between the first and second wave of the pandemic were asked. RESULTS: Survey of 282 respondents from 28 different countries was analyzed. Responses on treatment of the patient in the vignette were similar from respondents across the 28 countries. 247 respondents (87%) would admit the patient to the hospital, in most cases to a geriatric COVID-19 ward (78%). Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was found medically inappropriate by 85% of respondents, intubation and mechanical ventilation by 91% of respondents, admission to the ICU by 82%, and ExtraCorpular Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) by 93%. Sixty percent of respondents indicated they would consult with a palliative care specialist, 56% would seek the help of a spiritual counsellor. National guidelines on admission criteria of geriatric patients to the hospital existed in 22 different European countries. CONCLUSION: This pandemic has fostered the collaboration between geriatricians and palliative care specialists to improve the care for older patients with a severe disease and often an uncertain prognosis.